personally, i thought it was just alright. the pacing was not my favourite in the world but the cinematography and set design was gorg. the actors did a phenomenal job with their respective roles as well. however, the plot itself was lackluster and the film overall was not probing any new or enticing questions or analyses in the grand scheme of feminist theory that hasn't already been done, and done in a more effective and intruiging way (to ME).
not to say that a film HAS to always be revolutionary, but my theory is that a lot of people have been "overrating" Poor Things and acting like it IS revolutionary partially because the public has been jaded by the majority of big films being one of four things: remakes, sequels, live adaptations of a pre-existing animation, or about the multiverse. not that these types of film are inherently bad, but when theaters are being flooded with these movies, it leaves film execs no desire to create a unique script and film as they are likely worried that original films with little to no pre-existing fanbase would not be as profitable comparatively.
however, i do think that the high praise and positive reception of Poor Things has done a lot of good by showing execs that original movies CAN be successful and the public DOES WANT THEM. i also think its great that an arthouse film is serving as a symbol to push for more original films in the future. plus, just because i don't consider it revolutionary doesn't mean someone else isn't allowed to! these are simply my own personal views so pls don't feel discouraged if u really enjoyed the movie!